User talk:Jpena295

This user is a student editor in California_State_University,_Sacramento/Medieval_Art_(Spring_2020) .

Welcome!

Hello, Jpena295, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Shalor and I work with Wiki Education; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.

I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing.

Handouts
Choosing an article to edit Editing an article • Add images to articles Citing sources on Wikipedia
Additional Resources
You can find answers to many student questions on our Q&A site, ask.wikiedu.org

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:09, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review

Hello Jessica!

Overall, I think your article is structured well and uses reliable sources. Furthermore, the addition of nice images really helps the reader understand what the manuscript is about.

Professor Miller wants the following five sections present in your article, so I will transcribe those here:

Clear lead: Present. It is short and simple, yet very effective. It is a big improvement from the original that didn't have one at all.

A Clear Structure: I would say this is about a 6 or 7. I have a clear idea of what you want to say and where the manuscript was made and its history, but it could be cleaned up a bit. Of course, most of the material is from the old page, so it's clearly not your fault. I would say discuss the Papal Schism and the countries involved, consolidate the "made for an English patron" (it's listed twice), and if you can find more about the boy king, I would highly recommend it.

Balanced Coverage: Your page is overall very balanced. Other than the English patron in two places, your article is wonderful.

Neutral Content: 10/10, I can't detect any bias.

Reliable Sources: Again, another 10/10. All of the current sources are reliable, either from the original manuscript itself or from reputable sources. Maybe add a few more sources for the final draft as you write more on your page.

Overall, I think your article is great, I'd say 8/10 total. Just be sure to add more on the "origins" section as well as more to your "preservation" section. I can't get enough of your pictures either. They do a wonderful job of illustrating the manuscript.

Matt/Mnakaji (talk) 18:45, 8 April 2020 (UTC)mnakaji[reply]